CSI 2101 / Rules of Inference ( §1.5)
description
Transcript of CSI 2101 / Rules of Inference ( §1.5)
CSI 3505 / Automne 2003: Conception et Analyse des Algorithmes I.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
CSI 2101 / Rules of Inference (1.5)
Introduction what is a proof?Valid arguments in Propositional Logic
equivalence of quantified expressionsRules of Inference in
Propositional Logic the rules using rules of inference to build
arguments common fallaciesRules of Inference for Quantified
Statements
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Proof?
In mathematics, a proof is a correct (well-reasoned, logically
valid) and complete (clear, detailed) argument that rigorously
& undeniably establishes the truth of a mathematical
statement.Why must the argument be correct &
complete?Correctness prevents us from fooling
ourselves.Completeness allows anyone to verify the
result.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Proof?
Applications of ProofsAn exercise in clear communication of logical
arguments in any area of study.The fundamental activity of
mathematics is the discovery and elucidation, through proofs, of
interesting new theorems.Theorem-proving has applications in
program verification, computer security, automated reasoning
systems, etc.Proving a theorem allows us to rely upon on its
correctness even in the most critical scenarios.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Terminology
Theorem: A statement that has been proven to be true.Axioms,
postulates, hypotheses, premises: Assumptions (often unproven)
defining the structures about which we are reasoning.Rules of
inference: Patterns of logically valid deductions from hypotheses
to conclusions. Lemma: A minor theorem used as a stepping-stone to
proving a major theorem.Corollary: A minor theorem proved as an
easy consequence of a major theorem.Conjecture: A statement whose
truth value has not been proven. (A conjecture may be widely
believed to be true, regardless.)Theory: The set of all theorems
that can be proven from a given set of axioms.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Graphical Visualization
Various Theorems
The Axioms of the Theory
A Particular Theory
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
*
How to prove something?
Consider the statements: If you did not sleep last night, you will
sleep during the lecture. You did not sleep last nightWe can
conclude that you will sleep during the lecture.
Let P be you did not sleep last nightand Q be you will sleep
during the lectureThe form of our argument is:
which reflects tautology: ((pq) p) q
P QP---------- Q
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
*
Rules of Inference
Any valid argument form can be used there are infinitely many of
them, based on different tautologies validity of an argument form
can be verified e.g. using truth tablesThere are simple, commonly
used and useful argument forms when writing proofs for humans, it
is good to use well known argument forms so that the reader can
follow complex argument forms can be derived from simpler
onesAlthough the original idea was to have a mechanical approach to
proofs
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Rules of Inference
An Inference Rule is A pattern establishing that if we know that a
set of antecedent statements of certain forms are all true, then we
can validly deduce that a certain related consequent statement is
true. antecedent 1 antecedent 2 consequent means therefore
Each valid logical inference rule corresponds to an implication
that is a tautology. Corresponding tautology: ((ante. 1) (ante. 2)
) consequent
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Some Inference Rules
pRule of Addition pq pqRule of Simplification p pRule of
Conjunction q pq
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Modus Ponens & Tollens
pRule of modus ponens pq (a.k.a. law of detachment) q
q pq Rule of modus tollens p
the mode of affirming
the mode of denying
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Syllogism & Resolution Inference Rules
pq qr pr p q p q
Rule of hypothetical syllogism
Rule of disjunctive syllogism
Rule of Resolution
p qp r q r
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Formal Proofs
A formal proof of a conclusion C, given premises p1, p2,,pn
consists of a sequence of steps, each of which applies some
inference rule to premises or previously-proven statements
(antecedents) to yield a new true statement (the consequent).
A proof demonstrates that if the premises are true, then the
conclusion is true.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Formal Proof Example
Suppose we have the following premises: It is not sunny and it is
cold. We will swim only if it is sunny. If we do not swim, then we
will canoe. If we canoe, then we will be home early.Given these
premises, prove the theorem We will be home early using inference
rules.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Proof Example cont.
Let us adopt the following abbreviations:sunny = It is sunny; cold
= It is cold; swim = We will swim; canoe = We will canoe; early =
We will be home early.Then, the premises can be written as: (1)
sunny cold (2) swim sunny (3) swim canoe (4) canoe early
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Proof Example cont.
StepProved by 1. sunny cold Premise #1. 2. sunnySimplification of
1. 3. swimsunnyPremise #2. 4. swimModus tollens on 2,3. 5.
swimcanoe Premise #3. 6. canoeModus ponens on 4,5. 7.
canoeearlyPremise #4. 8. earlyModus ponens on 6,7.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
*
Exercises
Which rules of inference are used in:It is snowing or it is
raining. It is not snowing, therefore it is raining.If there is
snow I will go snowboarding. If I go snowboarding, I will skip the
class. There is snow, therefore I will skip the class.I am rich or
I have to work. I am not rich or I like playing hockey. Therefore I
have to work or I like playing hockey .I you are blonde then you
are smart. You are smart therefore you are blonde.
WRONG
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
*
Using rules of inference to build arguments
Show that: If it does not rain or if is not foggy, then the sailing
race will be held and the lifesaving demonstration will go on. If
the sailing race is held, then the trophy will be awarded. The
trophy was not awarded. implies It rained
#PropositionRule1(RF) (SL)hypothesis2S Thypothesis3Thypothesis4Smodus tollens 2 & 35S Laddition to 46R Fmodus tollens 1 & 57Rsimplification of 6
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Examples
What can be concluded from:I am either clever or lucky. I am not
lucky. If I am lucky I will win the lottery.
All rodents gnaw their food. Mice are rodents. Rabbits do not
gnaw their food. Bats are not rodents.
R rodentG Gnaw their foodB RabitM MousseT Bat
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
*
Resolution
The rule p qpr------- qris called resolution and is used in
computer (automatic) theorem proving/reasoning also basis of
logical programming languages like PrologIf all hypotheses and the
conclusion are expressed as clauses (disjunction of variables or
their negations), we can use resolution as the only rule of
inference.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
*
Resolution
Express as a (list of) clause(s): p(qr) (pq) p q (pq)
Use the rule of resolution to show that (pq)(pq)(pq)(pq) is not
certifiable
(pq)(pr)
(p) (q)
(pq)
((pq)(qp))= (pq) (qp)= (p q) ( pq)= ((p q) ( p)) ((p q) q)) = (q p)
(p q)
(q q) = F
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Rules of Inference for Quantified Statements
(x) P(x)P(c) Universal InstantiationP(c) for an arbitrary c (x) P(x)Universal Generalization (x) P(x) P(c) for some element cExistential InstantiationP(c) for some element c (x) P(x)Existential Generalization
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
*
Review
Commonly used argument forms of propositional logic modus ponens,
modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism (transitivity of
implication), disjunctive syllogism, addition, simplification,
conjunction, resolutionRules of inference for quantified statements
universal instantiation, universal generalization existential
instantiation, existential generalizationResolution and logical
programming have everything expressed as clauses it is enough to
use only resolution
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
*
Combining Rules of Inference
x (P(x) Q(x))P(a)-------- Universal modus ponens Q(a)
x (P(x) Q(x))Q(a)-------- Universal modus tollens P(a)
#StatementRule1x (P(x) Q(x))hypothesis2P(a)hypothesis3P(a) Q(a)universal instantiation4Q(a)modus ponens 2 & 3
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
*
Examples/exercises
Use rules of inference to show that if x (P(x) Q(x))x(Q(x) S(x))x
(R(x) S(x) andx P(x) are true, then also
x R(x) is true
x (P(x) Q(x)) and x(Q(x) S(x)) impliesx(P(x) S(x))x (R(x) S(x) is
equivalent to x( S(x) R(x)) Therefore x(P(x) R(x))Since x P(x) is
true. Thus P(a) for some a in the domain. Since P(a) R(a) must be
true. Conclusion R(a) is true and so x R(x) is true
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
*
Examples/exercises
What is wrong in this argument, proving that xP(x) xQ(x) implies
x(P(x)Q(x))xP(x) xQ(x) premisexP(x) simplification from 1.P(c)
universal instantiation from 2.xQ(x) simplification from 1.Q(c)
universal instantiation from 4P(c)Q(c) conjunction from 3. and 5.x
(P(x) Q(x)) existential generalization
c????
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
*
Examples/exercises
Is the following argument valid?If Superman were able and willing
to prevent evil, he would do so.Is Superman were unable to prevent
evil, he would be impotent; if he were unwilling to prevent evil,
he would be malevolent.Superman does not prevent evil.If Superman
exists, he is neither impotent nor malevolent.Therefore, Superman
does not exist.
A W PA IW MPE I M E
From A W P and P we deduce (AW) .A W (1) A I thus A I (2) W M thus
W M (3)(4)=(1)&(2) I W(1) & (4) A I ,,,,,,,,,
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
OK so what is a proof?
Formal proof sequence of statements, ending in conclusion
statements preceding the conclusion are called premises each
statement is either an axiom, or is derived from previous premises
using a rule of inferenceInformal proof formal proofs are too
tedious to read humans dont need that much detail, obvious/easy
steps are skipped/grouped together some axioms may be skipped
(implicitly assumed) we will now talk about how to write informal
proofs which are still formal and precise enough
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Terminology
Theorem: A statement that has been proven to be true.Axioms,
postulates, hypotheses, premises: Assumptions (often unproven)
defining the structures about which we are reasoning.Rules of
inference: Patterns of logically valid deductions from hypotheses
to conclusions. Lemma: A minor theorem used as a stepping-stone to
proving a major theorem.Corollary: A minor theorem proved as an
easy consequence of a major theorem.Conjecture: A statement whose
truth value has not been proven. (A conjecture may be widely
believed to be true, regardless.)Theory: The set of all theorems
that can be proven from a given set of axioms.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
OK so how to prove a theorem?
Depends on how the theorem looks like A simple case proving
existential statements x P(x):There is an even integer that can be
written in two ways as a sum of two prime numbersHow to prove this
proposition? find such x and the four prime numbers 10 = 5+5 = 3+7
DONE
For every integer x there is another integer y such that y >
x. x y: y>xEnough to show how to find such y for every integer
x: just take y = x+1Both are constructive proofs of existenceThere
exist also non-constructive proofs but constructive are more
useful
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Proving by Counterexample
Another simple case disproving the negation of existential
statements: x P(x)disproving universal statements by giving an
counterexample
Examples: Disprove: For all real numbers a and b, if a2 = b2
then a = bDisprove: There are no integers x such that x2 = x.These
are constructive proofs yes, you can also have non-constructive
ones
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
How to disprove an existential theorem?
By proving the negation, which is a universal statement.Example:
Disprove: There is a positive integer such that n2+3n+2 is primeWe
are going to prove: For every positive integer n, n2+3n+2 is not
prime.
Proof: Suppose n is any positive integer. We can factor n2+3n+2
to obtain n2+3n+2 = (n+1)(n+2). Since n 1 therefore n+1>1 and
n+2>1. Both n+1 and n+2 are integers, because they are sums of
integers. As n2+3n+2 is a product of two integers larger than 1, it
cannot be prime.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
How to prove a universal theorem?
Most theorems are universal of the form x P(x) Q(x) by exhaustion
if the domain is finite or the number of x for which P(x) holds is
finiteExample: x x is even integer such that 4x16, x can be written
as a sum of two prime numbers 4=2+2, 6=3+3, 8=3+5, 10=5+5, 12 =
5+7, 14 = 7+7, 16 = 3+13
Exhaustion does not work when the domain is infinite, or even
very large you dont want to prove that the multiplication circuit
in the CPU is correct for every input by going over all possible
inputs
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
How to prove a universal theorem?
Most theorems are universal of the form x P(x) Q(x) How to prove
that? generalizing from the generic particular Let x be a
particular, but arbitrarily chosen element from the domain, show
that if x satisfies P then it also must satisfy Q the showing is
done as discussed in the last lecture using definitions, previously
established results and rules of inference it is important to use
only properties that apply to all elements of the domainThis way
(assume P(x) and derive Q(x) of proving a statement is called a
direct proof
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Example 1: Direct Proof
Theorem: If n is odd integer, then n2 is odd.
Definition: The integer is even if there exists an integer k such that n = 2k, and n is odd if there exists an integer k such that n = 2k+1. An integer is even or odd; and no integer is both even and odd.
Theorem: (n) P(n) Q(n), where P(n) is n is an odd integer and Q(n) is n2 is odd.
We will show P(n) Q(n)
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Theorem: If n is odd integer, then n2 is odd.
Proof:Let p --- n is odd integer; q --- n2 is odd; we want to show that p q.
Assume p, i.e., n is odd. By definition n = 2k + 1, where k is some integer.Therefore n2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k2 + 4k + 1 = 2 (2k2 + 2k ) + 1, which is by definition an odd number (k = (2k2 + 2k ) ).
QED
Example 1: Direct Proof
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Example 2: Direct Proof
Theorem: The sum of two even integers is even. Starting point: let
m and n be arbitrary even integersTo show: n+m is even
Proof:Let m and n be arbitrary even integers. Then, by definition
of even, m=2r and n=2s for some integers r and s. Thenm+n = 2r+2s
(by substitution) = 2(r+s) (by factoring out 2)Let k = r+s. Since r
and s are integers, therefore also k is an integer. Hence, m+n =
2k, where k is an integer. If follows by definition of even that
m+n is even.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Directions for writing proofs
be clean and complete state the theorem to be proven clearly mark
the beginning of the proof (i.e. Proof:) make the proof
self-contained: introduce/identify all variables Let m and n be
arbitrary even numbers for some integers r and s write in full
sentences Then m+n = 2r+2s = 2(r+s). give a reason for each
assertion by hypothesis, by definition of even, by substitution use
the connecting little words to make the logic of the argument clear
The, Thus, Hence, Therefore, Observe that, Note that, Let
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Examples/exercises
Theorem: The square of an even number is divisible by 4.
Theorem: The product of any three consecutive integers is
divisible by 6.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Very Basics of Number Theory
Definition: An integer n is even iff integer k such that n =
2kDefinition: An integer n is odd iff integer k such that n =
2k+1Definition: Let k and n be integers. We say that k divides n
(and write k | n) if and only if there exists an integer a such
that n = ka.Definition: An integer n is prime if and only if n>1
and for all positive integers r and s, if n = rs, then r=1 or s =
1.Definition: A real number r is rational if and only if integers a
and b such that r= a/b and b 0.So, which of these numbers are
rational? 7/130.33.142857 3.142857142857142857142857142857
3/4+5/7
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Examples/exercises
Theorem: The square of an even number is divisible by 4.Proof:Let n
be arbitrary even integer. Then, by definition of even, m=2r for
some integers r. Then n2 = (2r)2= 4r2. Therefore and by definition
n2 is divisible by 4.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Examples/exercises
Theorem: The product of any three consecutive integers is divisible
by 6.I knew how to prove this, because I had some knowledge of
number theory.Definition: Let k and n be integers. We say that k
divides n (and write k | n) if and only if there exists an integer
a such that n = ka.Lemma 1: integers k,n,a: k | n k | an Lemma2:
Out of k consecutive integers, exactly one is divisible by k. Lemma
3: x: 2| x 3| x 6| x (a special case of a more general theorem) x,
y, z: y | x z|x yz/GCD(y,z) | x(will prove Proposition 2 and Lemma
3 afterward, when we know more about number theory)
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Proof of Theorem
Theorem: The product of any three consecutive integers is divisible
by 6.Proof: Let n be an arbitrary integer. From Lemma 2 it follows
that either 2|n or 2|(n+1). Combining with Lemma 1 we deduce that
2|n(n+1) and therefore (applying Lemma 1 once more) also
2|n(n+1)(n+2).By Lemma 2 it follows that 3|n or 3|(n+1) or 3|(n+2).
Applying Lemma 1 twice we obtain 3|n(n+1)(n+2).Therefore 2 |
n(n+1)(n+2) and 3 | n(n+1)(n+1). According to Lemma 1 it follows
that 6=2*3 | n(n+1)(n+2)
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Proof by Contradiction
A We want to prove p.We show that:p F; (i.e., a False statement)We
conclude that p is false since (1) is True and therefore p is
True.
B We want to show p qAssume the negation of the conclusion,
i.e., q Use show that (p q ) FSince ((p q ) F) (p q) (why?) we are
done
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
TheoremIf 3n+2 is odd, then n is odd
Let p = 3n+2 is odd and q = n is odd
1 assume p and q i.e., 3n+2 is odd and n is not odd 2 because n is not odd, it is even3 if n is even, n = 2k for some k, and therefore 3n+2 = 3 (2k) + 2 = 2 (3k + 1), which is even4 so we have a contradiction, 3n+2 is odd and 3n+2 is even therefore we conclude p q, i.e., If 3n+2 is odd, then n is odd
Q.E.D.
Example 1: Proof by Contradiction
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Classic proof that 2 is irrational.
Suppose 2 is rational. Then 2 = a/b for some integers a and b
(relatively prime).Thus 2 = a2/b2 and then 2b2 = a2.Therefore a2 is
even and so a is even, that is (a=2k for some k).We deduce that 2b2
= (2k)2 = 4k2 and so b2 = 2k2Therefore b2 is even, and so b is even
(b = 2k for some k
Example2: Proof by Contradiction
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Youre going to let me get away with that?
a2 is even, and so a is even (a = 2k for some k)??
So a really is even.
Suppose to the contrary that a is not even.
Then a = 2k + 1 for some integer k
Then a2 = (2k + 1)(2k + 1) = 4k2 + 4k + 1
Therefore a2 is odd.
Example2: Proof by Contradiction
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
More examples/exercises
Examples: there is no greatest integer Proposition 2: Out of k
consecutive integers, exactly one is divisible by k. there is no
greatest prime number
OK, we know what is an irrational number, and we know there is
one 2 the sum of an irrational number and an rational number is
irrational there exist irrational numbers a and b such that ab is
rational non-constructive existential proof
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Proof by contraposition
Proof by contraposition we want to prove x (P(x) Q(x)) rewrite as x
(Q(x) P(x)) (contrapositive of the original) prove the
contrapositive using direct proof: let x is an arbitrary element of
the domain such that Q(x) is false show that P(x) is true
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Proof of a statement p qUse the equivalence to :q p (the
contrapositive)So, we can prove the implication p q by first
assuming q, and showing that p follows.
Example: Prove that if a and b are integers, and a + b 15, then a 8 or b 8.
(Assume q) Suppose (a < 8) (b < 8).(Show p)Then (a 7) (b
7).Therefore (a + b) 14.Thus (a + b) < 15.
Example 1: Proof by Contraposition
QED
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Example 2: Proof by Contraposition
Theorem:For n integer , if 3n + 2 is odd, then n is odd. I.e. For n
integer, 3n+2 is odd n is odd
Proof by Contraposition: Let p --- 3n + 2 is odd; q --- n is
odd; we want to show that p q The contraposition of our theorem is
q pn is even 3n + 2 is even Now we can use a direct proof:Assume q
, i.e, n is even therefore n = 2 k for some k. Therefore 3 n + 2 =
3 (2k) + 2 = 6 k + 2 = 2 (3k + 1) which is even. QED
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Contradiction vs Contraposition
Can we convert every proof by contraposition into proof by
contradiction?Proof of x (P(x) Q(x)) by contraposition:Let c is an
arbitrary element such that Q(c) is false (sequence of
steps)P(c)
Proof of x (P(x) Q(x)) by contradiction:Let x such that P(x) and
Q(x)then Q(c) // existential instantiation same sequence of
stepsContradiction: P(c) and P(c)
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Contradiction vs Contraposition
So, which one to use?Contraposition advantage: you dont have to
make potentially error-prone negation of the statement you know
what you want to prove
Contraposition disadvantage: usable only for statements that are
universal and conditional
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Proof Strategy
Statement: For all elements in the domain, if P(x) then Q(x)Imagine
elements which satisfy P(x). Ask yourself Must they satisfy Q(x)?
if you feel yes, use the reasons why you feel so as a basis of
direct proof if it is not clear that yes is the answer, think why
you think so, maybe that will guide you to find a counterexample if
you cant find a counterexample, try to think/observe why maybe from
assuming that P(x) Q(x) you can derive contradiction maybe from
assuming that P(x) Q(x) you can derive P(x)There are no easy
cookbooks for proofs but seeing many different proofs (and yourself
proving statements) you learn many useful techniques and tricks
that might be applicable
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
More examples/exercises
Prove that there are no integer solutions for x2+3y2=8Prove that
there are no integer solutions for x2-y2 = 14Prove there is a
winning strategy for the first player in the Chomp gameProve that a
chessboard can be tiled by dominoes.Prove that a chessboard without
a corner cannot be tiled by dominoes.Prove that a chessboard with
diagonal corners removed cannot be tiled by dominoes.
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
More examples/exercises
Prove that xn+yn = zn has no integers solutions with xyz 0 for
n>2. Fermats last theorem (took hundreds of years to prove, the
proof is hundreds of pages)The 3x+1 conjecture: Does this program
terminate for every integer i?while(i>1) {if (even(x)) x =
x/2;else x = 3x+1;}
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Common Mistakes
arguing from examples we notice that 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 are
prime, we therefore conclude that all odd numbers are prime??? the
code produces correct output for the test cases, therefore it will
always produce correct output using the same letter to mean two
different things xP(x) xQ(x) does not imply there is c such that
(P(c) Q(c))
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Common Mistakes
Some other common mistakes:
The mistake of Affirming the ConsequentThe mistake of Denying
the AntecedentBegging the question or circular reasoning
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
The Mistake of Affirming the Consequent
If the butler did it he has blood on his hands.The butler had blood
on his hands.Therefore, the butler did it.
This argument has the formPQQ P or ((PQ) Q)P which is not a
tautology and therefore not a valid rule of inference
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
The Mistake of Denying the Antecedent
If the butler is nervous, he did it.The butler is really
mellow.Therefore, the butler didn't do it.
This argument has the formPQP Q or ((PQ) P) Q which is not a
tautology and therefore not a valid rule of inference
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Begging the question or circular reasoning
This occurs when we use the truth of the statement being proved (or
something equivalent) in the proof itself.
Example:Conjecture: if n2 is even then n is even.Proof: If n2 is even then n2 = 2k for some k. Let n = 2l for some l. Hence, x must be even.
(Note that the statement n = 2l is introduced without any
argument showing it.)
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Methods of Proof
Direct ProofProof by ContrapositionProof by ContradictionProof
of EquivalencesProof by CasesExistence
ProofsCounterexamples
Dr. Zaguia-CSI2101-W08
*
Many valid inference rules were first described by Aristotle. He
called these patterns of argument syllogisms.
*